Leading up to the second Turning the Tide Against Cancer Through Sustain Medical Innovation national conference on October 9, 2014, in Washington, D.C., the Age of Personalized Medicine editorial team had the chance to sit down with leaders from the initiative’s co-convening organizations to talk about the current cancer research and care landscape, what progress has been made since the start of the initiative, and the upcoming conference.

Our conversation with Marcia A. Kean, M.B.A., chairman of Feinstein Kean Healthcare, on the importance of enacting policies that keep pace with the rapid development of innovative cancer treatments, can be viewed below. Stay tuned for our video interview with Margaret Foti, Ph.D., M.D. (h.c.), chief executive officer of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Leading up to the Turning the Tide Against Cancer 2014 national conference, the Age of Personalized Medicine editorial team posed two questions to leaders in the cancer community who will be speaking at the event on October 9 in Washington, D.C. In part one, we asked speakers to share their insights on the role of innovation in advancing cancer research and care. The second question focused on the shift to patient-centered research and care, and how patient-centric approaches can improve healthcare.

QUESTION: What does having a patient-centered healthcare system mean, and why it is important for the healthcare system as a whole?

Here’s what some of the conference speakers had to say:

Patricia J. Goldsmith, CEO, CancerCare

“Consistent with the IOM definition, patient-centered care is respectful of and responsive to the individual patient’s preferences, needs and values. The days when clinicians make all of the decisions are over. Now that the consumer movement has reached healthcare, patients are becoming empowered to partner with their physicians to get the treatment they believe is best for them. The balance of power is shifting so that decision-making is shared. Within this environment, patients can fully engage in the process of developing and managing their own treatment. This is important because we know that engaged patients have better outcomes, higher levels of satisfaction with their health care, and consume fewer clinical resources.”

Tanisha V. Carino, Ph.D., Executive Vice President, Avalere Health

“In order to strive for a more patient-centered approach to cancer care, it is important to consider how patients are engaged in defining healthcare priorities, including identifying areas of unmet need and the types of study designs that best reflect the risks and tradeoffs they experience in care practice. Sustained medical innovation plays a central role in meeting these constantly evolving patient needs, which are particularly complex for cancer patients. Moreover, patients are now bearing much more financial responsibility for their care than in the past. The majority of exchange enrollees chose plans in the Silver metal level, which come with average deductibles up to $2,260 and maximum out-of-pocket costs reaching up to $6,350 for in-network care, according to Avalere PlanScape™ analysis. With increased financial accountability, patients, along with their caregivers, are increasingly engaged in making choices regarding the most appropriate treatment. Payment mechanisms for cancer care and new insurance products will need to keep pace with both medical advances and the financial realities facing patients and their caregivers.”

“Cancer care isn’t about cancer and cancer care isn’t about health systems. Nor is it about research or researchers. It’s about real people who are touched by, afflicted with, and hopefully live way beyond the experience of cancer. So fundamentally, we need to build our medical innovations with the patient in mind. For this reason, I’ve always thought we have to have the patient at the center of our data story – where data from one patient tells a longitudinal story across a life and then it’s the data of many patients that are aggregated together to form our foundational data set to support innovation. Similarly, patients need to be the cornerstones of our clinical trials and basic research – our muse.”

Newton F. Crenshaw, Vice President, North American Oncology Commercial Operations, Global Business Development and Advocacy, Eli Lilly and Company

“Patient-centered care means exactly that: treatment choices and care that reflect the preferences, needs, and values of someone with cancer, for whom each treatment decision has a profound implication on health and quality of life. Every patient’s experience is unique: for some people, progress means a better prognosis and more time spent with their families; others prioritize treatment that has fewer side effects or is easier to administer. Ultimately, patient-centered care respects these differences and prioritizes the values of each individual person.”

Tony Coelho, Former Member, U.S. House of Representatives; Chairman, Partnership to Improve Patient Care

“Personalized and patient-centered cancer care will improve health outcomes by identifying the treatments that work best for individual patients, improving outcomes by avoiding trial and error medicine. To further support patient-centered care, policies must not limit access or push ‘one-size-fits-all’ treatment solutions. Patient-centeredness consists of a series of principles focused on patient engagement, patient activation, access to a range of treatments, and shared decision-making. Patient-centered principles must be incorporated into the early phases of evidence development, translation and implementation, as well as in the design and implementation of new payment and delivery reform models for cancer care.”

Visit the Turning the Tide Against Cancer website to register for the conference and learn more about ways you or your organization can support the ongoing initiative. The Age of Personalized Medicine will also be tweeting live from the conference on October 9. Join the conversation with #T3cancer.

“One area of important medical innovation is the generation and use of data. This is not just hype around ‘big data’ but the recognition that we need amalgamation of data streams that tell the whole person’s story. This includes information about the cancer itself, and also the individual’s personal life: their values and needs, their personal experiences, as well as biometric monitoring. The longitudinal story expressed through data can then be used to support many innovations in cancer care. It can act as a clinical annotation stream to inform biological research such as annotation of biospecimens, biomarkers and basic discovery. It can be used to optimize cancer care delivery, or used for quality monitoring and to highlight gaps in care to be resolved. It can be used to compare differing interventions to figure out what works for whom and when. Advancing high quality and sustainable medical care is dependent on innovations around the generation and use of data.”

………………

Newton F. Crenshaw, Vice President, North American Oncology Commercial Operations, Global Business Development and Advocacy, Eli Lilly and Company

“Medical innovation is absolutely central to advancing the fight against the over 200 types of cancer. Each new advance, no matter how small, contributes to our scientific understanding of this collection of diseases, and provides new hope and cures to people with cancer. This cycle of continuous innovation has had impressive results and generated savings throughout the health care system: since 1975, the 5-year survival rate for cancer patients has increased by about 40%. To sustain–and accelerate–this progress, our society must continue to foster and reward innovation.”

………………

Tony Coelho, Former Member, U.S. House of Representatives; Chairman, Partnership to Improve Patient Care

“The rapid pace of medical innovation in oncology is increasing our ability to provide more personalized, patient-centered care (based on their biomarkers, quality of life considerations, etc.). Achieving more efficient delivery of high quality care will require continued medical innovation, including development of new treatments, improvements to existing treatments, and increasing efficiencies in the delivery system that support higher quality care and an overall a reduction in the economic and health burden of disease. But innovation is worthless without access to it.”

Great stories are published daily about the impact personalized medicine is having on individual patients, and the medical community as a whole, but it can be a challenge to stay on top of the news. With that in mind, we bring to you a monthly roundup of the three to five most thought-provoking articles we are reading, sharing and discussing with our colleagues.

Michael Kattan, chairman of the department of quantitative health sciences at Cleveland Clinic’s Lerner Research Institute, discusses sophisticated risk calculators, or “nomograms,” that can combine a patient’s unique characteristics, such as age, gender, race, extent and type of disease and other health factors; compare them with the vast databases of similar cases and studies; and use them to predict probable outcomes depending on the treatment a patient chooses.

On September 9, the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Health held a hearing to examine the regulation of laboratory developed tests (LDTs) as a continuation of the committee’s 21st Century Cures initiative. Members heard testimonies from various witnesses on recently released guidance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and its impact on innovation and the practice of precision medicine. Read more about the FDA’s proposed framework for regulating LDTs.

The United States is in potential danger of losing its biomedical edge to countries that are aggressively funding research into personalized medicine, according to discussion that emerged at the 21st Century Cures Roundtable on September 5. Roundtable panelists noted that biotechnology is at a crossroads in America, and that funding levels for research have flattened in recent years.

Mary-Claire King, the geneticist who identified the first breast cancer gene, is recommending that all women get tested for genetic mutations that can cause breast cancer, regardless of their personal or family history. According to a paper she recently published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, women who carry mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2, but have no family history of breast or ovarian cancer, have the same high risks of developing either cancer as those who are identified to be at-risk by virtue of their family history.

This year’s conference will bring together leaders from across the cancer community to help identify specific policy solutions to the challenges of supporting the shift to patient-centered research and care and addressing the value and cost of cancer care — two key themes that have emerged through the initiative’s ongoing work.

The Age of Personalized Medicine editorial team sat down with each of the initiative co-conveners to talk about the current cancer research and care landscape, the upcoming conference, and what progress has been made since the start of the Turning the Tide Against Cancer initiative in 2011.

Our conversation with Edward Abrahams Ph.D., president of the Personalized Medicine Coalition can be viewed below. Stay tuned for additional video interviews with Margaret Foti, Ph.D., M.D. (h.c.), chief executive officer of the American Association for Cancer Research and Marcia A. Kean, M.B.A., chairman of Feinstein Kean Healthcare.

Visit the Turning the Tide Against Cancer website to register for the conference and learn more about ways you or your organization can support the ongoing initiative. The Age of Personalized Medicine will also be tweeting live from the conference on October 9.

Following the launch of the Personalized Medicine Coalition’s U.S. Public Opinion About Personalized Medicine survey results, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America’s (PhRMA) asked the panelists from our launch event at the National Press Club – What key benefits of personalized medicine do you think the public needs to know about in order to embrace this approach to health care?

The survey, conducted by KRC Research, tells us that most Americans do not know what personalized medicine is, but once the concept is explained to them they are very supportive of advancing the field. In these short video interviews, each of these experts weighs in on how we connect the dots from lack of knowledge to wide support for personalized medicine.

The full set of video responses can be viewed on PhRMA’s Conversations blog, with additional commentary from Raju Kucherlapati, M.D., Professor, Department of Genetics at Harvard Medical School and Mark Richards, Senior Vice President, Management Supervisor at KRC Research.

Amy M. Miller, Ph.D., Executive Vice President, Personalized Medicine Coalition, discusses how personalized medicine is changing the way we experience health care today, including the development of the first cystic fibrosis treatment in over 20 years and other medicines that are improving patients’ quality of life.

Donna R. Cryer, J.D., President and CEO, Global Liver Institute, talks about the importance of educating both patients and clinicians about personalized medicine and its potential benefit, as well as her personal experience as a patient who has benefited from targeted treatments.

Randy Burkholder, Vice President, Policy, PhRMA, highlights the important future of personalized medicine and the commitment of America’s biopharmaceutical research companies to advancing the field and the science of personalized medicine.

Great stories are published daily about the impact personalized medicine is having on individual patients, and the medical community as a whole, but it can be a challenge to stay on top of the news. With that in mind, we bring to you a monthly roundup of the three to five most thought-provoking articles we are reading, sharing and discussing with our colleagues.

This article explores the growing debate over the cost and value of personalized medicines and identifies ways that the healthcare system may need to adapt to accommodate the development and use of increasingly more targeted therapies that work for smaller patient populations.

A recent genomic study published in the journal Cell suggests that 1 in 10 cancer patients could be more accurately diagnosed if cancer were defined by molecular and genetic characteristics, rather than by where it is located. Researchers believe that reclassifying cancer by identifying the type of cell that caused the disease, instead of the tissue type, could ultimately lead to better treatment in the future.

Early research at the Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research at MIT offers promise for personalized cancer treatments using RNA combination therapies to improve therapeutic response. The development of an efficient delivery system of individual or combined small RNAs to solid tumors could help regulate genetic mutations underlying a given patient’s cancer.

The key findings of the survey were positive. Although less than 4 in 10 Americans had heard of it prior to being surveyed, respondents are interested in learning more about personalized medicine and are supportive of the concept. For those who had heard of personalized medicine, their knowledge was shallow and did not associate the term with diagnostic testing or targeted treatments. This highlights the need for education to a willing public.

When the surveyed individuals were given a definition of personalized medicine, approximately two-thirds were receptive and expressed positive opinions about its prospects.

Respondents easily pointed out the major benefits of personalized medicine, noting that it could give them more knowledge to prevent or treat their illness, help them choose the most effective treatments with their doctors, and lead to a decline in unnecessary treatments, side effects, invasive procedures and trial and error medicine.

Many of the individuals who were surveyed even raised questions, specifically regarding the efficacy, potential risks, cost, access and affordability. A majority agreed that insurance should cover personalized medicine if it is recommended by a doctor.

We’re at the beginning of the golden age of personalized medicine. Armed now with a clear picture of the public’s opinion, we have an opportunity to raise awareness and increase understanding of what personalized medicine is, and how it can transform approaches to healthcare delivery.

On July 31, FDA announced drastic changes to regulation for personalized medicine products and services when it coupled the release of the long-awaited final guidance document on the regulation of companion diagnostic devices with a proposed framework for regulating laboratory developed tests (LDTs), which was also long-awaited or long-feared, depending on your perspective.

The final guidance on In Vitro Companion Diagnostic Devices was welcomed by the personalized medicine community because in the document, FDA clarified the path for co-developed drug-diagnostic products, and finalized their assertion that new targeted therapeutics will not be kept from the market if the diagnostic kit is not ready at the same time. This enables promising new drugs to come to market while also allowing the laboratory community to fill testing needs in cases where an FDA-approved kit is not available for therapeutic selection, dosing and avoidance decisions.

However, many issues remain to be addressed.

To address concerns that FDA regulation will pose obstacles to an already challenged laboratory industry, there is a rather long transition phase — nine years — and an initial focus on high-risk. FDA defines high-risk LDTs as those with the same intended use as cleared or approved companion diagnostics, LDTs with the same intended use as an FDA-approved Class III medical device, and certain LDTs for determining the safety and efficacy of blood or blood products. This focus and transition period will allow clinical laboratories and FDA time to adjust. By focusing initial regulation on high-risk LDTs, FDA makes a strong argument for the framework, and slices off a rather small segment of the LDT market.

Many have argued that FDA does not have the bandwidth to regulate LDTs. FDA responded to this claim by reiterating enforcement discretion for the vast majority of LDTs and outlining a process for LDT regulation, which might be less onerous than traditional regulatory pathways for medical devices.

Although FDA made great efforts to address concerns about the Agency’s new regulatory enforcement, it did not address perceived conflicts between laboratory regulation under Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) and this new framework. Furthermore, FDA intends to use an expert advisory panel to provide recommendations to the Agency on LDTs risks and classification on certain categories of LDTs, as appropriate. I suspect that defining those categories will be contentious and, at times, difficult.

Investors have long argued that clarity is necessary in both regulation and reimbursement for continued advancement of personalized medicine. We now have clarity on FDA’s current thinking although many issues remain unresolved. The community has time to consider this framework and may soon have a chance to provide public comments. And finally, the pharmaceutical industry has the FDA’s assurance that targeted treatments will not be held up by co-development challenges.

Great stories are published daily about the impact personalized medicine is having on individual patients, and the medical community as a whole, but it can be a challenge to stay on top of the news. With that in mind, we bring to you a monthly roundup of the three to five most thought-provoking articles we are reading, sharing and discussing with our colleagues.

When it comes to individual health risks, there is no such thing as average, yet most health guidelines and recommendations are tailored to “average” individuals in the population. This blog post by Muin J. Khoury, director of the Office of Public Health Genomics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention highlights some of the challenges to actualizing the concept of individualized disease prevention and best utilizing each individual’s biological uniqueness.

For more than 30 years, Ide Mills worked as an oncology social worker, health educator, and communication strategist. Now as a woman living with advanced, ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer, Mills tells Genome magazine about her experience transitioning from intravenous chemotherapy to a twice-daily pill regimen to help treat her disease. Her story details the challenges – and improvements – she experienced adjusting to the concept of oral cancer therapy and taking an active role in her healthcare.

When she founded genetic company 23andMe more than six years ago, Anne Wojcicki’s ultimate goal was for people to be in control of their own healthcare. Wojcicki is still determined to change the way traditional healthcare works in the United States by shifting the focus to individuals instead of institutions. 23andMe is currently working with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to get approval for its direct-to-consumer personal health reports that analyze an individual’s DNA.

A number of major insurers are beginning to address the increasing availability and usage of gene-sequencing tests by seeking proof that the results will lead to meaningful treatments among the estimated 2 million Americans with a serious, undiagnosed disease. Genetic experts have responded saying that gene-sequencing tests, such as exome sequencing, are bringing hope to families by more than doubling the chances they will get a diagnosis and saving them money by not spending it on multiple tests of a single gene.

In last month’s Required Reading, we shared an article from The New York Times about next-generation sequencing (NGS). Learn more about the private cloud-based environment called the High-Performance Integrated Virtual Environment (HIVE) that the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research supported the development of to help prepare the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to review and understand the interpretation and significance of data in regulatory submissions that include NGS.